Mythbusters to Tackle Moon Hoax

Without doubt this particular film inside the spaceship proves that they were not at the moon but not very far from earth. It was obvious that the
light was indeed the Earth and they were faking this particular part of the trip. Now did they go to the moon? May be but all the astronauts were/are
still involved in the cover-up of what they were really up to?

[edit on 1-9-2008 by mlmijyd]

Can any of these believers explain why they were faking their distance from the earth three days out and how they made it to the moon from earth's
orbit just a few hours later for real where they could have just taken the footage for real?

BUT when asked to do it again, they cannot reproduce the same results they allegedly produced decades ago..

wind blowing on the 'moon' , camera's allegedly used to take footage on the moon that was not shielded for radiation nor extreme cold, shadows
falling at several angles in one shot, 'astronauts' photographed in shadow showing as if standing in bright daylight, reflections in 'space'
helmets showing multiple light sources, no trace of a blast pit underneath any lunar lander, no engine noise in footage showing a 'landing' from
inside the 'lander', the Van Allen belt, I could go on for quite some time..

there's a movie on youtube somewhere called 'What really happened on the moon?' (which lasts about 3 hours) showing off several of these
anomalys.

The thread starter says this theory 'started' in the 90's, which is simply not true.. it did spread the theory further, but the lunar landings have
allways been contested..

Sometimes the Moon looked rock spuned and others like a beach.
A tale that can only be done in someones imagination or by Walt Disney
and Werner Von Braun and the Illuminati.
A feat that could not be done and luckily people found a better way to
do it.
Why do it in the first place, cause Kennedy said so.
And the show took 8 years to make...'by the end of this decade'
so LBJ could have the Huston NASA dream works and Nixon Nam
profits.
I thought Truman was buffaloed by advisers, looks like Kennedy
got trapped by Moon walker dreams.
LBJ and Nixon knew to let the Illuminati do as they please and
now we just have fiction on film and not pseudo reality.

Keep looking. Anyone that has not watched at least "What really happend on the Moon" has nothing to argue with but what NASA told them here.
It is one of the better of these docs and many of the NASA followers on this thread would have a much better argument if they at least gave it a look.

RE: Different Shadow Angles In Photos
There is a photo of the moon’s surface that shows the lunar lander with a different shadow angle than other objects in the photo. One theory on this
is that there were two light sources, thus proving that a hoax had taken place. In actuality, if there were two light sources, there would be
overlapping shadows. An example of this is often seen during nighttime sports events where each player has multiple shadows going in different
directions. However, the photo does show evidence of a close light source - a source other than the sun. That is the reason why the lunar lander has
one shadow angle and the rocks have a different shadow angle. The lander’s shadow shows that it was closer to the overhead light source which is
similar to a shadow on earth at high noon while the rocks were more distant from the light source which is similar to a shadow on earth in the late
part of the day. Debunkers always debunk the shadow theory by setting up a light source and showing the different shadow angles that can occur. They
never perform the test with the sun’s light because it will always show the same shadow angles. The debunkers are actually proving the close light
source theory!

Just curious but did this thread die because mythbusters is just entertainment and would never really tackle the truly telling issues or go against
the word of the companies that own the show who stand to gain by maitaining the government lead status quo, or because it is easier to prove it was a
hoax than it is to prove it was real no matter what the truth is?

Ever think of ether displacement as the source of gravity.
Just like Archimedes' discovered Buoyancy we can discover
ether displacement for the moon and earth gravity.
Now if we can get the right moon and earth displacements
and the correct gravity measurements.

Check it out, volume displacements are ether elated by 7.2 for
velocity.

I just read some of this thread, and whenever someone brings up the moonhoax, you can wait for people to bring up the Bart Sibrel stuff. He's the
maker of several 'documentaries' in which he tries to make people believe the landings on the moon never happened.

What motivates this guy? Well, he's a Christian. Nothing wrong with that, but he's the kind of Christian that believes God won't allow people to
land on the moon, therefore the landings on the moon can't have happened.

So now he's stalking the astronauts, and tries to make them swear with their hand on the bible that they went to the moon.. and some of the
astronauts actually did him this favor... In the meanwhile he's doing whatever he can to 'debunk' the moon landings.

His claims have been debunked over and over ad nauseum, yet people keep bringing up the same stuff.

Here are a few links that should put the claims of Sibrel in the proper perspective: those of a religious nut.

There would have had to be way too many people involved to create a conspiracy to fake the moon landings. Reliable people would eventually have talked
and it just hasn't happened. I think it's crazy for people to pick that as a conspiracy theory to believe in quite honestly and I find it insulting.

The Moon Conspiracy had to be used to as another example
of TPTB getting their way.
Putting their greedy ambitions ahead of human safety.
Ten years of government spending for a grand idea to keep
scientists on the government payrolls.
Which was needed perhaps still back in the 50s.
As long a Von Braun was around NASA needed him because
he knew of the ether scientists.
The ether scientists have no power now.
Either real or a show the project was completed and as long as
an ounce of doubt can be raised the ripoff gets attention.
The problem is if the mission was determined to be impossible
how would the alternate mission go down.
Simulation was going on since day one in the planning.
One way or another Operation Paper Clip people got paid.

Originally posted by Tiamanicus
Just curious but did this thread die because mythbusters is just entertainment and would never really tackle the truly telling issues or go against
the word of the companies that own the show who stand to gain by maitaining the government lead status quo, or because it is easier to prove it was a
hoax than it is to prove it was real no matter what the truth is?

I couldn't agree with you more. It seems to me from the few shows I have watched that all it is is entertainment. My gut feeling is they couldn't
care less proving anything. All that matters to people like this is ratings and I guess they work under certain restraints that obligate them not to
rock the boat. I learn't more about the moon hoax here on ATS and got more or less what I expected from this useless waste of space called
myth-busters. In my opinion they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Thanks for not letting the thread die all..

Originally posted by hawkeye1717
There would have had to be way too many people involved to create a conspiracy to fake the moon landings. Reliable people would eventually have talked
and it just hasn't happened. I think it's crazy for people to pick that as a conspiracy theory to believe in quite honestly and I find it insulting.

Not necessarily. The government and many companies in general employ compartmentalization of their work force in order to keep things under wraps.
That means you can have any number of individuals all working on different parts of a project without knowing what the other person is doing or why or
even that you might be working on the same project.

Of course, they filmed and photographed a number things in a studio for training, training to land, for instance. That's documented and not secret at
all, and it's also very convenient to fall back on if anyone claims you faked it. And if you were the lighting tech, or the guy who had to buy the
cement mix, then you'd back that up. It's not like they'd say, "Okay, Joe, this is for a fake moon landing.". You would be working on a need to
know basis.

Maybe that's a bad example but compartmentalization is how you get around the concern you brought up.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.